Usually when anyone refers to race, for any reason, they're either ignorant - they don't know any better - or almost certainly vicious, Actually probably vicious either way. — tim wood

This is perhaps the stupidest comment I've read about racism in a long while. If true... then you... are almost certainly vicious. Come to think of it, your suggested approach will and has do/done more harm than good. If and when racists change their language use, they'll still be racist and nothing changes except a minimized ability to identify them. Your approach could be used, and actually has been, by people like Richard Spencer, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, and many others who are racist despite not using the term "race"...

Yeah... as I said. No thanks.

Explain to me please the boat I'm missing. Racism is presumably based on race and attitudes grown therefrom. Now take race out of it, because that's known to be a nothing. You tell me: what is the nature of what's left?

What I'm on about is the word - not inappropriate for a site styled as this one is. Fair question, then. if you use "race," what do you mean by it?

Racism is very real. But now we know that race cannot be a part of racism because there ain't no such thing. But then what is racism?

Yeah... as I said. No thanks. — creativesoul

Great. Then tell us, what does race mean? And you seem oblivious to my distinction between "race" on the one hand and on the other "racism" and "racist." Race isn't, and racist and racism are, but since they cannot be based on something that isn't, what are they based in?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/

Explain to me please the boat I'm missing. Racism is presumably based on race and attitudes grown therefrom. Now take race out of it, because that's known to be a nothing. You tell me: what is the nature of what's left? — tim wood

Please reread my post that you initially replied to. This time look for your answers regarding what racist belief is, what racism is, and what systemic racism is...

All those answers were offered up front.

Another referral to an article the referrer apparently has not read! From that article:
"I am not being flip or coy. If you tell me that you plan to study "race and intelligence" then it is only fair that I ask you, "What do you mean by race?" It's true I don't always do math so well, but I understand the need to define the terms of your study. If you're a math guy, perhaps your instinct is to point out the problems in the interpretation of the data. My instinct is to point out that your entire experiment proceeds from a basic flaw -- no coherent, fixed definition of race actually exists." Italics added.

All those answers were offered up front. — creativesoul

And apparently you did not read my reply to that.

What exactly are your collective points, @creativesoul, @Benkei? I offer that the word "race," as two videos referenced in this thread make clear, and as Benkei's reference states, is a word in search of a meaning. That thinking thoughtful people ought not use it, unless appropriately qualified.

In turn, racism and racist become problematic in terms of their own meaning, the difference being that what they refer to is real, just no longer meaningfully named, because "race" has no meaning. And to be sure there is good and obvious reason to move toward this - some - correction in usage.

So what are your problems? What argument are you making? What objections do you have?

You've invoked the term "race" as something to focus upon. I'm not interested.

Clearly you don't understand the conclusion of the article. That's fine.

You mean this?

""Race," writes the great historian Nell Irvin Painter, "is an idea, not a fact." Indeed. Race does not need biology. Race only requires some good guys with big guns looking for a reason."

I am indeed not sure what he means by "good."

Race, then, the essential ingredient - it would seem - for racism and racist practices, is nothing but an idea, and a bad one. If you and creative wish to frame your observations in terms without determinate - or any - meaning, then have at it. Regrettable, and, why are you here?

The point of, 1) race was an idea before science tried to find support for it, 2) racism based on science was merely a temporary and contingent particular idea of racism 3) the idea won't go away just by using different words, because it's an idea and you cannot police ideas.

The whole "let's be colour blind" our "let's not talg about race" is totally useless and in fact makes it harder to resolve the consequences of current and historic racism. To be anti - racist requires you to understand what racism meant and what it still means today to be able to formulate effective policies against it. A policy "let's not use the word" isn't going to resolve anything except for making people stupid and unaware of the extent of historic and current racism. So, indeed, in my view you're part of the problem.

The whole "let's be colour blind" our "let's not talk about race" is totally useless — Benkei

Show me where I said or even suggested any of this. Further, what does colour have to do with race? And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that paying attention to words and their meanings, or lack, and usages "is totally useless"?

You've obviously a mouth - or at least you can type. How about a mind; try using that.

Edit: Have you watched the videos in question?

Bye Tim.

Systemic racism as well as it's affects/effects are the result of codes/laws written by racists(those with racist belief systems), and as such it founded upon and/or borne of racist beliefs. That is the case whether you like it or not. I'm not alone here either. — creativesoul

Very well said

Thank you. Hoping this finds you and yours safe and well.

Cheers!

Just in time and made to order to kick-off the
G_ang
O_f
P_utin's

M_oscow
A_ss(et)
G_overns
A_merica hatefest:

Much more, of course, will be needed to "completely dismantle" the Prison Industrial Complex, etc; but the immediate, proximate, ongoing injustice of extra-judicial police killings of Black, Brown & Poor people in this country cry out for the kind and scope of reforms contemplated here which, unfortunately, nothing like them can or will be implemented soon enough - especially given the racist, neo-fascist, crime family currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. :shade: — 180 Proof

Jacob Blake.

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/615616/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15983533601410&amp_ct=1598353373298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2020%2F08%2Fjacob-blake-shooting%2F615616%2F

American apartheid.

Louisiana - TRAYFORD PERRIN. 11 shots. d.8/21/20

48 hours to reload.

Wisconsin - JACOB BLAKE. 7 shots. (paralyzed) 8/23/20

I saw the Blake shooting. Why are guns even drawn at that point? Blake is unarmed...

Because American police are confident (with good reason) they won't be prosecuted for killing nonwhite (& poor) citizens. "We" don't hold our police accountable for racist (or nonracist) murder & other criminal misconduct in this country. It's that simple. I zero-in on this problem in my list of police reform particulars: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420081

Do US police have Rules of Engagement? Because aside from all the systemic issues with regard to the wrong incentives, lack of education etc. if we want to eradicate the criminal element in the US police force, then the rules need to be very clear.

For instance, in the Netherlands you do not get to fire your first shot at a suspect unless your life or that of another is in immediate danger. An officer is allowed to draw his gun before that, but only after other means of escalation of force were used (baton, police dog, pepperspray). He's allowed to fire a warning shot but not allowed to shoot at the suspect unless there is immediate danger to himself or another. Note: never in the defence of property.

Every instance where the firing of a gun by a police officer results in injury (no matter how small) will be investigated by an independent branch of the Department of Justice (the police are part of the Department of Internal Affairs). If there's any doubt about the correct usage of the gun, his weapon is confiscated until such time as the investigation is over.

What I see, is some fucknut who can't handle being ignored losing his shit. I wouldn't be surprised if he beats his children or wife whenever they disagree with him.

And is it me or are there now vigilantes shooting protesters in Kenosha?

↪180 Proof Do US police have Rules of Engagement? — Benkei

On paper they do. There certainly aren't any career penalties for violating RoE policy where there aren't any for police violating the criminal code.

And is it me or are there now vigilantes shooting protesters in Kenosha?

If there are, that wouldn't surprise me. Or even shock me.

Addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420051 (from 2020)